At their best, who would win?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Graphiteking, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I can remember the 2004 US Open final when Federer beats Hewitt. I saw that Hewitt stayed passively on the baseline (as he often does), no wonder against a first class Federer.

    And I remember the 2009 Wimbledon final when Roger almost lost to Roddick who put an easy volley into the net.

    I will never be able to convince you about Santana.

    I agree regarding your description of some great players of the past.
     
  2. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Who cares about whether Santana was as talented as Federer or not? While I do think that simply counting numbers and list of accomplishments in order to determine greatness is simplistic, the wide gulf of those between Santana and Federer is so vast that they cannot be compared on any level.

    And regarding that Roddick match, almost counts for nothing. We could also say that Federer almost beat Djokovic at the 2010 and 2011 US Opens. Federer wasn't exactly at his peak even back at Wimby 2009.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TomT, Since I still suffer from an ear pain and a cold, I'm thus the more grateful for your post. Thanks a lot.

    I generally regret that nowadays there almost are no serve and volley players.

    Even the mighty Federer would have troubles when meeting a man who dares to volley repeatedly. It was interesting to see that a few years ago an old and off the game Sampras was able to beat Roger in an exhibition and to give Roger good opposition in the other ones. Of course an exhibition is not a Wimbledon final but it at least the exhibitions indicated that even Federer is vulnerable sometimes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  4. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Really, are we using exhibitions as an example again?
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    quindarka. Yes, I do.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, Yes, some posters here (and even much more on General PPD) have an agenda: Idolizing a certain, well-known player...
     
  7. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Of all the Fed fans posting here, only TMF really pushes the pro-Fed agenda. The rest are willing to engage in reasoned discussions, it's not their fault if others talk nonsense and attempt to dismiss them as fanboys.

    If they have an agenda, then you among other 'historians' have an even more blatant one.

    You've been doing your fair share of whining that people have differing opinions.

    And yes, General PPD is filled with Federer fanboys and people pretending to be Federer fanboys. There are a fair share of anti-Federer posters as well. It doesn't go all on one way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  8. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Except that you shouldn't, (modern) exos aren't serious in the least, it's just a cash grab and and at best light training for pros (none of them go anywhere near full out).

    Heck, Andy Roddick straight setted Fed in an exo in 2007 (Kooyong) and that was a more serious exo as it served as a warm up for AO.

    Using their 2001 Wimbledon encounter to draw conclusions is far more credible and even that match is pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things as neither player was at his best.
     
  9. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Agree, more or less.

    Pete's 1999 could have been greater had he not injured himself before USO, there's no doubt he would have been the 1st favourite (he was in great form leading to it) but yeah 2000 was when he became almost a pure serve and volleyer.

    It's interesting to me how people still remember Sampras mostly as a serve and volleyer when he played a lot of tennis from the baseline in his best year and he wasn't always an overly aggressive player either.

    In his 1995 IW final against Agassi for example I felt that it was Agassi who had to play more out of his comfort zone and go for bigger shots from the baseline (then he would have liked to ) while Sampras played patient, controlled tennis (don't have the stats to back me up it was just the feeling I got while watching the match).
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I mentioned 2004-07 , you got only one measly match from there ? hewitt was a counter-puncher, he is going to stay mainly on the baseline ......
    that's still not much of a description of the match or how federer played ....

    as far as the 2009 wimbledon final goes, again, wrong again ..... roddick hit that volley out, not into the net ...he'd have been up 2 sets to love ... while a very strong position, its still not equivalent to roddick winning it ...again, federer just missed an easy FH at 5 all in the first set at a BP chance ... if he hadn't, he'd have served for the set and probably would have taken it ...

    and again, that's no description of the match at all ..... you mention the near result and a shot ( that too wrongly ) .. that doesn't constitute a description at all

    there are plenty of things one could mention about a match - the ebbs and flows, the strokes/movement of each player , the mental state of the player etc etc ... but what you've said so far is almost nothing ... you seriously think you can't do better than that ?

    course not, trust me , you are insanely wrong about santana being anywhere close to federer's talent level ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    exos these days are merely for charity/entertainment unlike in the 60s or 70s or 80s where the winner would take a lot more money...

    roddick defeated federer at an exo just before the AO in 2007 ...... what happened when they actually met @ the AO ? federer absolutely blitzed him 6-4,6-0,6-2
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  12. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    That's the thing with these historians. They talk of being so experienced, having apparently watched tennis for decades and use this point to lord it over others. Yet all they can do is talk about numbers and selectively follow the opinions of former players, I see little in way of actual analysis from them.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qindarka, Let's make peace between the fans of older times and the fans of current time.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    zagor, I believe that the pride of Federer was a factor in those exhibitions. He surely did not want to lose against an oldie who was away from regular tennis for 5 years. Also Pete's pride should have turned him on to try in those matches.
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I don't want to be belittled by you. As I told you match descriptions are not my strength. Sorry for my error.

    As you can blame me for being a weak match commentator, I can blame you for ignoring Santana's greatness.
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qindarka,

    Don't put all historians in one pot. I do know that some of them, f.i. krosero and pc1, are much better in describing matches as I'm...
     
  17. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Clutching at straws !

    Federer has ONLY respect for Sampras. He has said that many times. Losing or winning in a exho doesn't mean anything. They don't play with their full potential.
     
  18. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    I'd love to see that. Needs both sides to cooperate though.

    Yeah, probably shouldn't have done that. I don't dislike all the historians, mainly annoyed by guys like kiki and DRII. Though I honestly think you talk a lot of nonsense as well.

    He isn't ignoring Santana's greatness. 4 slams, including titles at RG and Wimbledon is certainly a great accomplishment, amateur field or not. It's just that Federer has far eclipsed him, and I honestly don't see how that can be disputed. The subjective issue of 'talent' might be brought up but what does that matter when the accomplishments are miles apart.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I don't quite think so .... A much more likely possibility is that you haven't watched many matches of federer at all ..... that's why you can't describe ... I'm not asking you to write 'eloquent' paras about the matches .... just what happened in those matches ... your sentences don't do that...

    you are just going by the stupid propaganda of anti-federer fans as it is convenient for you ...

    anyways leaving that aside for a moment, what on earth makes you think peak nadal ( outside of clay ) and peak djoker (maybe outside of slow HC ) are better than peak federer ?

    santana was a good player, a very good one .... but doesn't touch federer's talent level ...... ignoring santana's greatness ??? LOL ......

    doesn't even come close to your statements against federer - weak era , not anywhere near the top when it comes to peak level of play .....

    funny thing - by the end of 2004, when federer had "just 4 slams", many were already talking about whether his level of play was the highest in the history of tennis ...
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    surely much more than pride was at stake in their 2001 wimbledon match where it was defending champion sampras vs a 19 year old rookie federer ? Guess what happened ?
     
  21. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    See, it's this simple. If you don't like a player, you will ONLY see a players win through the mistake of his opponent. Everyonoe does it, I too have done that, and now you also do it..

    The volley was in the second set. Yes, Roddick couldn't make it. That doesn't mean that Roger almost lost the final as you exaggerate it. It's NOT like you miss a shot at match point to say that he almost lost. Come on, it's just the second set. If Roger can go down two sets against Rafa, and come back to an almost victory in W 2008 then there is no reason to believe that he cannot do that against a player whom he has owned. You dont know what would have happened, but to say that almost lost a match is a huge exaggeration :)

    In the first set, when Roddick served at 5-5, Roger had around four break points. Once he missed by an inch. If he had converted probably the match wouldn't have gone the distance. Instead Roddick saved those match points and took the first set by breaking Roger in the next..

    They are not cyborgs, mere players. No big deal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  22. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Krosero, I'm totally convinced by your analysis. Thank you as well for the Rosewall-Roche's video: Excellent!

    BobbyOne, you can't draw conclusion from exhibitions. They are often rigged. Federer played Del Potro twice in Argentina. He lost one match, he won the over. It was the same against Nadal a few years ago. He lost in Madrid and won in Zürich a fiew days later. Even if they weren't, players come with a different determination. See the Kooyong exemple.

    abmk, BobbyOne is less interested in current tennis than in past tennis. That is comprehensible. If you enjoy serve and volley, baseline game can be boring. His opinion of Fed (and over current player) is thus as tenuous as mine (and probably yours) is on Rosewall; on which I see only a few video, don't know well the worthyness of his opponents, nor the exact specificity of his playing condition. No need to go on a crusade to convince him.

    As for talent, I believe it is the emptiest concept in tennis (as in sport in general). I really don't understand what it could mean, except that each individual can have a dozen understanding of its meaning.
     
  23. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Feather, I'm surprised they ignored your point about Fed's racket. I think it's a valid point. On general forum there's a lot of talk about him needing to switch to a bigger, newer raquet to be more competitive
     
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,400
    I actually don't think Federer was lucky. Some write that he didn't beat Nadal but the thing is that he is rarely upset in majors and he took advantage of his opportunity. That's not luck but a product of his consistency imo. Everyone competed and Federer won.
     
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    except that isn't the case ... He keeps on insisting that peak nadal and peak djoker are better than peak federer while giving no reasons whatsoever :roll:

    he keeps on repeating that 2004-07 when federer dominated was a weak era and then says that "analysis" is "undisputed" ...

    well talent is subjective, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it is an invalid concept ....

    now imagine if someone said that roddick is more talented than mcenroe or laver ........ :)
     
  26. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Then discuss with him of Rosewall, Newcombe, etc. As for talent, What about Nadal? Lendl? Nalbandian?
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qindarka, Thanks that you say I write nonsense.

    There have been many players who did not win too much but were more talented than several stars like Perry or Emerson. Very talented were, among others, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Santana, Pietrangeli and Nastase. Where is the problem??
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I now stop the conversation with you. Thanks.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Did not win Federer both exhibitions? One in two, one in three sets as I have read.

    Thanks for your understanding of my position.

    With talent I mean skills, touch shots (lobs, half-volleys, drop shots), as Laver, Rosewall, Santana, Segura, Riggs, Nastase showed. Of course it's also great talent to make the right shot at the right time.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
     
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    just goes to prove your ridiculous anti-federer bias and cluelessness about tennis ... quitting when you have zero answers ... goodbye ...
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, A last word: Do YOU give reasons why Federer is better in his peak?

    I don't remember that I wrote that my "analysis" is undisputed. I don't use the word analysis for my own statements. The weak era is not undisputed but there are several people here who agree with me.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    For instance I believe that McEnroe had more talent than Lendl. But both were about equal in achievements and playing strength.
     
  34. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    So talent means more or less fineness? Then the less powerful a player is, the more talented he is (because he needs to counterbalance his drawback?) --> In recent players, Santoro is thus more talented than Djokovic or Federer, Hingis is more talented than Serena? It seems a very narrow definition to me, if I understood it correctly. I do love fineness more than power however.

    Regarding the exhibition with Del Potro, I didn't check. He may have won both, but exhibition are often rigged nonetheless.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Yes, finesse. That I meant. Tennis commentators in Germany and Austria usually speak about "touch players", or in German, " er hat ein (goldenes) Händchen" (he has a golden hand).

    I always admired Santoro because of his skills. I appreciated that even a short man with a weak service (weaker than Rosewall's) can cope with hard hitting players.

    Federer, after an exhibition recently, said that del Potro could become No.1 on day.
     
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, I've said it many times before :

    in comparision to both djoker and nadal,

    federer has the better serve, FH, net play, slice, ability to take it on the rise, ability to end points quicker, variety ......

    nadal's edges are his BH is more consistent, his consistency in rallies and mental strength

    djoker's edges are his BH, consistency in rallies, return and mental strength

    federer has the ability to grind out with them as well as play first strike tennis. nadal and djoker can't play first strike tennis that well at all and can be rattled by arrhythmic play , i.e where opponents do not allow them to get into a groove on their ground strokes ..

    taking all surfaces and types of opponents into consideration, fairly obvious federer has the better peak ( apart from nadal on clay of course )

    again, off clay ( or rather slow, high bouncing surfaces that take spin well ), federer's BH comes closer to nadal's and is superior to nadal's on fast HC/indoors ... his serve and FH cause more damage as well ...

    again comparing with novak, apart from maybe on slow HC, federer's serve+fh potency+ BH variety+ability at the net are a simply a more potent force than novak's groundstroke consistency ( incl return )

    again, in 2011 when djoker was out-nadaling nadal, i.e. beating nadal at his own game, insane consistency, stamina and mental strength , nadal couldn't do much because he had no options left except to wait for djoker's level to drop and this was prime nadal ( his 3rd best year after 2008 and 2010 ) , he didn't have the serve to overcome djoker's return nor the ability to mix up pace to disturb novak's rhythm ...and most importantly , this happened on every surface

    but 30 year old federer was able to do that .... he served well and varied his game, therefore was able to beat novak @ RG and nearly beat him @ the USO ..

    even though nadal has the clear edge in h2h vs federer ( mainly thanks to clay ) , he was never able to dominate him on all surfaces as federer held his own on the faster surfaces, even past his prime and always beat him indoors ...... that's because he had his serve+fh to bail him out ....
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Your post is serious and without a nasty undertone. I wished you would write always that way!
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    again , what I wrote in my previous post was subjective ..... talking objectively,

    federer has a massive lead at every non-RG slam+indoors vs nadal
    federer has a massive lead at every non-AO slam+indoors vs djoker

    even with age, the only place where either of these 2 could come close achievements wise is djoker @ RG, but major part of that would be because of nadal declining on clay and federer having to face more of peak nadal @ RG than djoker .

    and again, many a times, many people ( including many fed fans ) do him a disservice by just stating 17 majors, 17 majors ....... His greatness goes way beyond that ..... his dominance, variety, consistency etc etc ....

    His high level of play including his variety & ability to pull off miraculous shots consistently was what made people rave about him at first .......his set of achievements came in much later .....

    even laver had nothing but high praise for his ability to do almost everything on a tennis court ..

    even someone like kramer who rarely gives praise gushed about his ability ..
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I always do when the person whom I am responding to writes sensibly . I rarely post that way in response to posters like krosero, Moose Malloy, zagor, pc1 etc ....

    Differences of opinion arise of course, for example some could think mac had a higher peak level on grass, some could think becker ...but when someone writes something clearly ridiculous, many a times I feel like countering it ....
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    except talent isn't just finesse. Its about what the player can do on a tennis court overall ....

    if talent is just finesse , then santoro would be considered more talented than nadal/djoker/agassi etc and we all know that isn't the case ...

    roddick's ability to serve is a part of his talent .. so is chang's speed/court coverage ....
     
  41. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Yes, but there's overall very little footage available from past eras (even in the 90s atleast in my country there was nowhere near as much as coverage as there is today) so sometimes the opinions of said player's peers is all people have to draw from, Kramer and Laver praising say Hoad's level of play does carry some weight and is interesting to hear.
     
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    I disagree (take no offense at it, it's just a difference of an opinion), I do think Fed got a kick out of playing and hanging with his idol and Pete probably found it interesting to see what's all the hype about this guy firsthand, however the results of matches themselves I think were mostly staged (I thought even before they started their series of matches that there's no way Sampras wouldn't win one of them).

    Fed's an extremely careful guy about his planing, scheduling etc. he doesn't give his full effort even in warm-up tourneys (and masters sometimes) let alone exos.

    I realize exos were very different back in the day (something I learned from this site and had no idea beforehand) but the exos Fed played in his era are mostly hit and giggle stuff where the priority is entertaining the crowd and having a bit of fun, the winner and the loser both receive the same paycheck.
     
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,400
    Qindarka,

    Can you do me a favor and not use the term historian with negative connotations? This is no us against them thing. We all together here to learn about tennis. We all love tennis and we all have observed superb players. I don't see lording over others from anyone I can think of. By definition you're a historian too because you write about past matches. I would love to see your opinions because isn't the Former Pro Player talk area about the past and therefore aren't we all writing about tennis history. I'm just a fan of the game who is trying to help with answers and occasionally giving my opinions.

    The question was who at their best would win. I haven't seen Vines at all or Hoad at his best so I ventured to give some possibilities that they are in consideration.

    It's hard to answer this question. Edberg's victory over Courier is a good example of being in the zone but could he play like this if Sampras was serving aces or hitting unreturnable serves?

    I've seen Laver in the zone where he seems to make hitting the line look easy yet could he play like that against Gonzalez?

    With a wood racquet I might pick Laver or Borg who is the best when on overall on all surfaces. Borg's combination of power serve, power groundstrokes are tough to beat. McEnroe is there too but he would be very vulnerable (but good) on clay. With current racquets or somewhat modern racquets, I would pick Sampras on fast surfaces to medium pace court. Kuerten on clay. I am not including the current players. Too many tough choices here. You could also pick Gonzalez, Tilden, Vines or Hoad when they are playing their best also. Rosewall's quality of play was also extremely high also.
    Another thought is let's say you have a Roscoe Tanner who can serve bullets. Yet a Jimmy Connors (I'm thinking of the 1975 Wimbledon semifinal) blasted the serves back for winners. They were comparing Connors to Lew Hoad after that match. They were saying Connors was returning the serve faster than Tanner hit them. Was Connors in the zone for that match? Apparently so but I haven't seen the match so I cannot comment.

    Here's a little viewpoint on the Tanner-Connors match. They mentioned it was perhaps the hardest hitting ever on that court.
    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0705.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  44. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    I'm sorry for making the generalization. You among others do not deserve to be associated with those whom I am primarily referring to.

    Really, with all the nonsense over in GPPD, I've probably been snapping a bit too much.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ^^

    maybe pseudo-historians would be a better term ? :)
     
  46. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Let's look at Federer's win/loss records.

    2003: 75-16
    2004: 74-6
    2005: 81-4
    2006: 92-5
    2007: 68-9
    2008: 66-15
    2009: 61-12
    2010: 65-13
    2011: 64-12
    2012: 71-12

    There was already a drop in 2007 from the high standards he had set in 2004-06. And that drop was not due to Nadal, because Federer lost to Rafa only twice in ’07, compared to 4 times in ‘06. For whatever reason – probably simply because no one can keep up a perfect standard for long – Federer’s losses were increasing. It would be too much to use the word ‘decline’ for ’07, but I think you could say he was starting to slip.

    ’08 was a bad year, with 15 losses, nearly as many as he had in ’03. But the drop to 15 losses was not due to Djokovic (who beat Federer only once in ’08, just as in ’07). Nor was it entirely due to Nadal, who beat Federer 4 times (up from 2 times in ’07). He was also just taking bad losses throughout the year, even to people he had owned (Roddick in Miami, Blake at the Olympics).

    In ’09 he came back up to some degree, but by then you could clearly see the decline in his game. Some observed him to be slower than at his peak; and his return game against Roddick in the Wimbledon final was clearly inferior to what it had been at his peak.

    H2H against Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

    H2H against Djokovic:http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D643
     
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    You have no idea about the past champions, and/or the very best players from the 90s and today. If you already knew, I wouldn't expect any better respond anyway:)mad:). There's isn't any great player at Rosewall's height ...winning slams, ranked #1, and domination against the field, in case you didn't know. All the best players are at around 6' - 6'3", and Rosewall is well below this height. If the conditions and racquet technologies suits for a small players, then where are they at? Don't tell that it's just a coincidence that over past 2 decades there wasn't any great/gifted talented player around. It's obvious the sport is tailor best for player's hovering around 6 feet and a little taller. Since you haven't watch any tennis, watch it now. You will see how disadvantage for an undersize player who doesn't power on both wings, lack big serve, etc...


    Who said that you have to be a giant like 7 feet tall to be one of the greatest? I get tired of poster(e.g. PC1) always misrepresented me. I've always said players optimum size is at 6 to 6'3", not more, not less. Grass is worst for an undersize player, while I believe clay is the most forgiven surface. But even all the past FO champion aren't close to Rosewall's size either. The one exception is Chang in 89, but many saw that win was a surprise, because Chang was certainly not the favorite. In fact, Mac didn't respect Chang...at Wimbledon, he said if Chang win Wimbledon, he would take his pant off in front of the center court.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Thanks that you informed me that I have not watched tennis. Since I believed I yet have watched much of past and current tennis, I must have got some hallucinations....
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  49. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,400
    Again you're being too rigid. There were very few great players in tennis history before Rosewall's time at that height. You cannot just decide arbitrary that you have to be in a certain height range to do well today. Rios was 5'9" tall and he was ranked number one. Don't say he did not win a major because he certainly could have.

    Joe Morgan was 5'7" tall and yet he was the MVP of the National League twice and probably the best player in baseball. Pedro Martinez has been said to be 5'9" tall but he is the most dominant starting pitcher I have seen. Randy Johnson is 6'10" but I'd rather have Pedro for a big game in his prime.

    Genius comes in many forms and heights.

    I find it interesting that you write that I misrepresent you when you once took a quote of mine totally out of context and put it in another thread to show that I seemed to support your point. I do support you at times when I agree with you.

    Here's where I agree with you, a certain height range does help the player. Extra height of course helps the angle on the serve. Now who knows what will happen in the future? Perhaps we may have incredibly agile players who are 7' tall, serve better than anyone and be as smooth as anyone that ever played.

    My point is that genius in tennis is not confined by height. I agree that a certain height range helps but it is not the end all.

    Let's use Rod Laver as an example. Laver was about 5'9" or 5'8" tall. But he also had a tree trunk left arm and a huge left wrist. He also was an extremely quick and mobile player. He did not serve as well as Pancho Gonzalez but perhaps no one ever has. However he was an excellent server even late in his tennis career. No he did not have the angles that Isner would have or Pancho Gonzalez at almost 6'4" tall would have but he did get excellent racquet speed (helped by that wrist) so he could hit a large variety of excellent serves. He had a great lefty slice, an excellent kick serve and he had a good flat serve. He volleyed very well and his overhead was deadly. He jumped very well on his overheads. He also was superb at taking the ball on the rise, sometimes almost on the half volley. Laver more than compensated for his lesser height with his great talent and top physical ability.

    Check these articles and videos out.

    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/sports/backtalk/082600anderson090168.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps

    How is his serve?
    How is Laver's overhead?
    How's his volley?
    How's his range?
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  50. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    ^^you posted the same youtube video twice.

    Anyway, here's a cool service comparison video with Pancho and Fed. In case some younger members are unfamiliar serves were done a bit differently back then.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oaZ-49eebo
     

Share This Page